If You Don’t Trust the Fed, Here’s An Inside View That Confirms Your Worst Suspicions

Earlier this year the notion that the Fed might modestly taper its purchases drove significant upheaval across financial markets. This episode should engender humility on all sides. It should also correct the misimpression that QE is anything other than an untested, incomplete experiment.

- Former FOMC Governor Kevin Warsh, writing in the Wall Street Journal on November 13.

If I may paraphrase a sainted figure for many of my colleagues, John Maynard Keynes: If the members of the FOMC could manage to get themselves to once again be thought of as humble, competent people on the level of dentists, that would be splendid. I would argue that the time to reassume a more humble central banker persona is upon us.

- Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher, speaking in Chicago on December 9.

I fault the Fed for its lack of intellectual leadership on the economy and, in particular, Bernanke’s lack of forthrightness about the limits of the Fed’s ability to address slow growth and fiscal disequilibrium.

- Former St. Louis Fed President William Poole, speaking in Washington D.C. on March 7.

Does anyone else see a common theme?

Last month, we offered a plain language translation of the Warsh op-ed, because we thought it was too carefully worded and left readers wondering what he really wanted to say. Translation wasn’t necessary for Fisher’s speech, which contained a clear no-confidence vote in the Fed’s QE program. Poole’s comment was from a seminar question-and-answer session earlier this year, but it reached our inbox only last week in a transcript published in the latest Financial Analysts Journal. The Q&A was attached to an article that I’ll discuss here, because it makes claims we haven’t heard from others with FOMC experience.

Here’s an example:

Ben Bernanke talks a lot about risk management and the tradeoff between benefits and costs; he maintains that the need to balance these two issues justifies proceeding with the current policy. But Bernanke does not discuss the risk of political intervention in Fed policy despite numerous examples of the Fed giving in to political pressure and waiting too long to change its policy, which results in a detrimental outcome for the economy.

…

Essentially, pressure on the Fed will come from inside the government and may not be very visible; it may be limited to a few op-ed articles from the housing lobby. [FFW – presumably, Poole intended “it” to refer to the visible part of the pressure.] The true amount of political pressure will be largely hidden.

Poole is more or less saying that we have no idea what’s truly behind the Fed’s decisions. But he doesn’t stop there. He’s willing to make a prediction that you wouldn’t expect from an establishment economist:

[T]he real issue is the politics of monetary policy … I believe that the Fed will not successfully resist the political winds that buffet it. I am not a political expert or a political analyst by trade. My qualification for speaking on this topic is that I have followed the interactions between monetary policy and politics for a very long time. As with all things political, the politics of the Fed means that realities often fail to match outward appearances … I believe the Fed is likely to overdo its current QE policy of purchasing $45 billion of Treasuries and $40 billion of MBSs per month.

So there you have it: a 10-year FOMC veteran wants us to know that central banking isn’t all about the latest hot research on the wonders of unconventional measures. On the contrary, monetary policy is no different than other types of policymaking; it’s guided by hidden political forces.

If you don’t mind our saying so, we feel a bit vindicated. Our very first Fed post ten months ago included the following:

As for the flip-flop [the Fed’s commitment to lifting the stock market through QE so shortly after claiming no responsibility for stock prices in recent bubbles], it’s easy to find a logical explanation. The banks want QE. Influential political and economic leaders want QE. Therefore, the path of least resistance is to give them QE. On the other hand, market manipulation to prick the Internet and housing bubbles would have been widely unpopular. Therefore, policymakers rejected the idea that they should manipulate markets and prick bubbles. No one likes to be unpopular.

More generally, QE seems to me to be explained by Bernanke (and his colleagues) being unable to sit still. This is natural behavior when you have to continually justify decisions. It’s not easy to explain to Congress, the media or public why you’re doing nothing but waiting for past policies to work. It won’t be long before people portray you as weak and indecisive and tell you to “Get to work, Mr. Chairman.” But once you start implementing new policies, especially if they’re in a direction that’s expedient for everyone in the short-term, then those criticisms go away. They’re replaced by adjectives like bold and proactive. And who doesn’t want to be known as bold and proactive?

We haven’t returned to this theme often, partly because it can’t be tested like we can test the Fed’s economic beliefs. Regular readers know that we do quite a lot of empirical work. We try our best to follow David Hume’s maxim that: “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence.”

As we see it, the Fed’s economic beliefs are proportioned more closely to political factors than real-life evidence. You might replace Hume with Upton Sinclair, who said “it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it.”

In other words, politics and personal incentives are a huge part of the picture, and not just in central banking but in the economics profession more generally.

The theories underpinning current policies, which have built up over the last 80 years or so, can’t be properly understood without thinking through the motivations behind key developments. Some of the motivational factors are obvious, while others are more subtle, but I won’t clutter this post with our musings on the hidden drivers in economics. Detlev Schlichter offered a nice summary in his book, Paper Money Collapse:

It would be naïve to simply assume that the exalted position of [mainstream economic] theories in present debate is the result of their superiority in the realm of pure sciences. This is not meant as a conspiracy theory in the sense that professional economists are being hired specifically to develop useful theories for the privileged money producers in order to portray their money printing as universally beneficial. But it would be equally wrong to assume that the battle for ideas is fought only by dispassionate and objective truth-seekers in ivory towers and that only the best theories are handed down to the decision makers in the real world, and that therefore whatever forms the basis of current mainstream discussion must be the best and most accurate theory available. No science operates in a vacuum. The social sciences in particular are often influenced in terms of their focus and method of inquiry by larger cultural and intellectual trends in society. This is probably more readily accepted in the other major social science, history. What questions research asks of the historical record, what areas of inquiry are deemed most pressing and how historians go about historical analysis is often shaped by factors that lie outside the field of science proper and that reflect broader social and political forces.

Moreover, ever since mankind began writing its histories they have served political ends. History frequently provides a narrative for the polity that gives it a sense of identity or purpose, whether this is justified or not, and the dominant interpretations of history can be powerful influences on present politics. Similarly, certain economic theories have become to dominate debate on economic issues because they fit the zeitgeist and specific political ideologies. This is not to say that economics cannot be a pure, objective science. It certainly can and should be. Whether theories are correct or not must be decided by scientific inquiry and debate, and not in the arena of politics and public opinion. But it is certainly true that many economists do depend for their livelihoods on politics and public opinion, and that they cannot operate independently of them.

Schlichter is one of many authors and bloggers willing to discuss the awkward realities lurking behind economic theory and central banking. But these ideas are considered taboo by most mainstream media outlets. They’re not discussed in establishment venues or spoken by establishment figures.

Or so I thought.

Poole’s refreshingly honest take on the Fed’s inner workings – from someone who truly knows what goes on behind the curtains – is more than welcome.

Like the Federal Government closing down for a day last week due to the no snow storm.Otherwise they'd a made or saved 2,288,493.27 jobs.Don't wanna pull job creation too far into the present, so we'll just add those folks into the monthly numbers over the next 18 months.

Nothing to see here, because it's all imaginary.Bread, circuses and bullshit

So that leaves a secretive fed to print a lotta money, no?Damn!

Don't forget, as Soupy Sales would have said; "It's all fucked up, kiddies!"

" In 2003 then President of the St. Louis Federal Reserve, William Poole publicly called for the US Government to cut its implied guarantee of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae claiming then that the two lacked capital to weather severe financial crisis. Poole, whose warnings were dismissed by then Fed Chairman Greenspan, called repeatedly in 2006 and again in 2007 for Congress to repeal their charters and avoid the predictable taxpayer cost of a huge bailout."

so many post rational thought, namely numbers don't lie, data does not lie, but pointing to the number of a certain very small group have positions of power in MSM, Gov, BANKS, education and so on and so forth, is a lie.

The Fed worships at the altar of big banks and the government- it's primary stake-holders (and I have increasing difficulty distinguishing between the two). The only thing that will stop their multi-decade policy of "if it moves, print at it" is when their policies stop benefitting BOTH of their stake-holders simultaneously, as they do now. What would tigger such a rift? Not sure, but I suspect rising interest rates would be part of the trigger.

Until that happens, they will continue current policies to a greater or lesser extent (tending more towards the 'greater' end of the spectrum).

Two elderly Jewish gents are walking alomg the street and pass a cathedral with a sign out front says: "Conversions, $200"One looks at the other, shrugs his shoulders and says: "Meh, why not give it a try"10 minutes later he comes out and his buddy asks him if it worked. He says: Meh, I don't feel any different."His bud asks: "Didju get the $200?"He looks at him and says: "My God, don'tchu Jews ever think of anything but money?"

Thank you for down votes Mao Zedong ZH blog soldiers . You cannot swing the UN bullshit as racism. Looks like you just got caught up in your own propaganda sting. Let’s see how you can dig yourself out of this hole. Tag, your it.

Tullett Prebonis an inter-dealer money broker. Per Wiki...The company operates as an intermediary in wholesale financial markets. Many of its clients are commercial and investment banks. It operates in eight product areas: Volatility, Rates, Credit, Treasury, Non Banking, Energy, Equities and Property.

So, if their clients are commercial and investment banks, then it is a very interesting message that Tullet Prebon is telling to them with this material. I wonder if the parts of the Fed could be considered commercial or investment banks? ...Hmm.

Even Deutsche Bank is thinking along the lines that there has been some important structural change per the recent ZH article "We Think Something Structurally Changed Since The Great Financial Crisis"

according to whom? who calculated these estimates, and specifically those of the saudi reserves...my guess (and i have reason to hazard this guess) is that it's a fraction (with a diminutive numerator atop a troubling denominator) of what's claimed...we're playing a game based on assumptions promoted by powers unseen...like those who pay for the calculation of such estimates.

give me a gold backed dollar and a series of middle eastern colonies or give me anarchy! (updated from p. henry) people of earth, it really is that simple. you cannot have your idealistic notions of self-determination AND governments as they exist. so, either abandon your soverignty or start picking which nations you'd like to colonize. i claim iran and kazakstan to begin with...your turn, russia. russia takes saudi and mexico...your turn china. china takes east africa and taiwan (for sentimental reasons). the EU claims lybia and the sudan. on and on and on.

one thing's FOR SURE...it'll be a golden literary age full of high adventure either way...colonies or anarchy -- win/win for the writer.

"Schlichter is one of many authors and bloggers willing to discuss thee awkward realities lurking behind economic theory and central banking. But these ideas are considered taboo by most mainstream media outlets. They’re not discussed in establishment venues or spoken by establishment
figures."

One may endlessly debate and complain about the effects and consequences of the system, but one must never question the system itself.

One may endlessly debate and complain about the effects and consequences of the system, but one must never question the system itself.

Many have begun questioning the state of affairs. Fear breathes down their necks. Consequences equates to tearing down the small family controlled ponzi scam they call capitalism. Monopoly is the precise term. We’ll rip down the monopoly to jump start capitalism... Again, we know where they live. :>)

these aren't the principals espoused in the manifesto i read, lo those two-plus turbulent years ago. in point of fact, this kind of behavior is antithetical to the philosophical spirit animating said manifesto.

is this 'ladies home journal' or is it mutha-fuckin Fight Club? but the Tylers (you boys just barely keep caps) are making new friends (and have been for over a year), very powerful, charming, erudite and well-meaning friends. friends who, when they invite any of the Tylers (maybe one in particular...hmmm?) to any social function, first flatter, 'oh, my dear, it's simply fabulous what you've done...and i read...oh, tis no secret, we all read...it's only, well, we find some of the comments concerning; off-putting, really. it's altoghether ghastly.' then they nudge (for Tylers' own good (and by extension the good of all we ZHealots)) thusly, 'but in order to spread-out in natural directions -- that is, to flourish --you're going to have to prune some of the blight from your branches'...or something to that effect.

something tells me janus isn't too far off.

it's tough to say no; few find the courage; fewer still are heroes...the wine is, after all, top-shelf -- and the pussy parading about in such settings? well, they are parabolic-spike-making in the mostest.

maybe we've expected too much; maybe the fault is not in our Tylers, but in our selves, dear ZHealots.

perhaps some of us have been named by these swanky 'friends'; perhaps some of us have made the list:

the simple and salient question is therefore: are we -- having so prospered from the wisdom of ages before -- to now accord 'protection' to select, abstract 'groups' over and against those God-endowed rights ennumerated unto The Individual in silly things like the Magna Carta, The Decleration of Independence, The Constitution or the ZH Manifesto? I say no.

I say tolerance is a sublime & truly liberal virtue; advocacy of a nebulous group is not, however, true to any authentic liberal ethos, it is instead anathema to the same...it is a new-fangled form of tyrrany (actually a very olde tyranny (not unlike the special protections extended to, oh, i dunno, 'the aristocracy'), but i digress), it is a soft and subtle tyrrany meant to cripple and cage the critical mind.

and if'n yer curious, yup, janus has spent a night or two in the starkville city jail...once for flowers, too! only, the kind of flowers they sell by the lid; or, for all you millenials, the OZ. but things weren't so bad back then; at least you could smoke in lock-down...well, it wasn't a good idea to smoke the flowers...but many of the bruthahs were equal to the challenge -- bruthahs can hide buddage in the most uncanny places. and to answer any questions: no, i passed on that one (don't want to say from whence he pulled that dubbage...disgusting!)

i cannot speak for the tylers or anyone else...but i will allow ole Bill Shakespeare to speak for janus:

...i am as the Northern Star, of whose true-fixed and constant quality, there is no fellow in the firmament.

i thought i recognized you from my earliest beginnings here on the Hedge; and then i checked your stats -- 4 years & 22 weeks...which would place you at the very origins -- back when the Hedge was but a series of saplings planted about the perimeter of maiden lane. 4 years & 22 weeks; that's what i call bona fide.

let me say a few things (this has the potential go long)

as the resident mystic round these parts, i want to first defend your decision to post such a long piece...not that that should be standard form; but certain times call for certain things -- and 5 am on a wintry, mystical night/mornin certainly qualifies.

it's difficult to discern if you were out to criticize, commend or concoct some queer combination of the two; my guess is the latter; insofar as each part could, for janus, be taken in either a laudatory or slanderous light...but it's all-good. if anybody can take it, janus can; only, sometimes he doesn't...like when he slaps the snarksters about with extreme prejudice.

which leads me to a most important observation and critique i have for the piece you posted. when i attack, or, let's say, when i seek to destroy, it isn't from the perspective of one thinking 'evil' must be vanquished such that a golden age of equality, fraternity & justice may from their ashes emerge; rather, i understand the duality more than i can, under the present constraints of time, express (there is, after all, a very good reason i am janus...well, there's several reasons -- again, too much to explain). it has more to do with a matter unaddressed in the treatise you shared; namely, balance.

which is why i support a strong russia; because they act as effective check on our boundless and feckless hubris...mind you, not because russia is 'good'...well, on a relative basis, their stated (and, when it comes to russia, stated is not always acted) objectives are good (for russians) -- in terms of foreign and domestic policy -- and they act with regard to the same; relative, at least, when contrast against our own. besides, when did containing russia get confused with capturing russia? were we really foolish enough to think?...nah, we couldn't possibly think we could effectively balkanize mother russia into a manageable collage of splintered shards...could we? beware blowback, bitchez! this may be hard for neocons to believe, but russians are actually proud of such and intend to so remain.

but i, again, digress...

the current paradigm is out of balance; the black squares of the great game have tinctured the white with their inky abominations and desolations, moreover they have sloshed past their boundaries, such that the white squares are a squalid swill of the detritus spilt from within the bounds of their opposing brother. evil has about it a disproportionate sway; and things are going their way. but not for long.

balance must be restored; all things must settle at equilibrium; but things never stay in any permanent stasis...the world (and the universe) is a dynamo of flux...it is not only the human instinct to 'over-correct' imbalance, it is the very nature of all dynamos found in our world (and the universe). what i mean to say is, the time is approaching when the forces of 'good' will subsume and snap the spine of 'evil' till its almost forgotten...and then, well, 'evil' is loosed again to attain to equilibrium, and then some. {side note: equilibrium is NOT an arbitrary assignation}

other than that, i absolutely LOVED what i read; and it wouldn't surprise ole janus to discover, a few chapters later, good ole mr. watts coming around to reconcile all his ideas to this theme of 'balance'...i may be wrong, or optimistic, or both; but i am certain that i'm right...and all other ancient mystics (those worth their salt) are here of a single accord on this equilibrium thing. hell's bells, even Jesus Christ took counsel with that serpent of olde on more than one occasion; most notably when He was tempted. but it bears noting that Christ was known to have said, 'get behind me, satan'...and He did strike the serpent on the head (in retaliation for biting Him on the heel...vengeance is so damn sweet! -- especially when you exact it seven-fold).

the overarching point is that the world is warped something awful...evil is everywhere spreading itself out like a bay tree, choking off the Light from those who know best what to do with it.

speaking of trees, Christ & parables, it may be instructive to review one of His gems: (paraphrased)

The Story of The Master, The Steward and The Tree:

master: i see you've got yourself a sorry and fruitless tree...what of it, noble orchard steward?

steward: well, the thing with this tree is, it used to put off the most exquisite fruit...bloomed and brought forth the choicest of ripened deliciousness. alas, it's all but barren...still puts off magnificent foliage, though.

master: uproot the damnable thing...i detest it.

steward: please, master, allow me to prune it; let me dig about its roots to irrigate and fertilize...it was such a magnificent tree...oh, how it used to provide for and please many...a marvelous thing it was.

master: okay, do as you wish, honorable orchard-tender.

***okay, so, the steward does as promised...time passes, and still the limbs do nothing but blot the life giving Light from those beneath it***

***master returns to inspect***

master: what ho!?! i demand and explanation for all this mischief!

steward: please, master...just one more season.

***and so we wait***

master: (no words, just a scowl and an air of menace)

steward: gulp!

master: take this tree, uproot it, chop it into a thousand pieces, and toss it into the FIRE! no place in my orchard for a goddam parasitic resource-sucker! may it rot in hell!

steward: right-o...couldn't agree more, me lord!

so, as you can see, the tree is the US government and the master is God Almighty; and we ZHealots (and many like us) are but the humble stewards...not that we don't understand our own shortcommings and felonious tendencies -- not unlike your glint-eyed judge.

methinks it's time for purging-fires and bilious indignation on behalf of 'good'...if, that is, we want to save the whole orchard; lest evil consume the whole of the garden for the sake of a single fruitless tree...selah.

the choice is not theirs; the decision is ours. we now have the numbers and the resolve. i have cast my lot against evil, and i'm kindling a bonfire -- of the vanities, of course (special thanks to tom wolf).

i forgot one other thing; and this is my ultimate criticism of hinduism, zen & nirvana & the like...it's something of a basic philosophical principal; from which we in the west derive all others. not that i'm averse to 'intuition' and whatnot; but if we're to apply reason and logic to our experience and how our senses interact with our surroundings, and furthermore, how our consciousness collates sense, experience, judgement and awareness...well, there is no denying our essential singularity...some fool out france-ways had this to say, 'cogito ergo sum'. i think therefore I AM (as your bio states, pardon me for making this personal).

that is the very point. to minimize or negate the individual -- not as in 'possession' of the godhead, but rather of and in the godhead; that is to say, the individual IS the godhead -- and classify its inviolate Truth as a low hoax, is to both blaspheme the godhead itself (The Individual) and migrate this most seminal uniqueness into a melange, or rather amoebae, of homogenized 'being'...bah!

it is this very thinking that has so far relegated the hordes of the east to despotic thuggery -- stay within the herd, we are but one, striving for one's self is but sin...again, bah!

tell me how there's some nobility in the modes and mores manifest of that imbecility...the nations and cultures so consumed with this esoteric and ethereal balderdash are all rotting corpses of vice, depravity, poverty, disease, superstition, indolence, squalor and venal decay (and if it weren't for our zany western ideas, things would be far, far worse over there...read a bit of unfiltered history). but, i'll grant them this, they do have some compelling scripture...only, as we in the west say, ye shall know them by their fruits. and it's a sorry and molded bushel if ever there were such.

tell me of some ascetic monk flagellating his flesh on some windswept mountain peak, and how he serves as a model for us all; and janus will show you some Kierkegaard or some Emerson or some Twain...they and many other janus-heroes had much to say on this 'illusion' of the self -- and they had other things to say about others, others not their selves.

duality not only implies distinction; it is the necessary condition of its relevant meaning. and by extension, singularity is all the more pronounced among the multitudes...especially for us sentient sort...the single individual...the cogito-ergoers among us. e pluribus unium, as we say.

i don't mean to be contentious; it's just that it's an important point.

i have thought several times about what to say in a reply to you. i'll keep this post brief ;-)

first, thank you for the kind words. and, you're right. i wasn't trying neither to criticize nor commend. rather, i read what you wrote, and i was compelled to share that text i have bookmarked by alan watts.

Janus, the scenario you depict for Tyler and his 'new friends'. Well when I was in the US I saw almost the exact thing in real life. amazing similarities. At that time though I was 'unawakened' and tought it to be sound advice. In a sense it was of course.

Oh here we go again. Is this FRANCIS? what's the elephant essence? Please extrapolate. Is it that the joos are taking over the world? All of them? Are we Jews all in this together? Let's hear essence!!!

I've addressed you before Kitco. You're a nothin muffin who comes along with snarky comments yet never once offers any firm opinions on anything (ZH readers, ...check Kitco's comment history to confirm my assertion)

The elephant in the room you ask .... all right, I'll state it loud and clear,

There's unwarranted jewish influence in the banking, media, corporate and government sectors in the US.of A. It reeks of malfeasance in the the same way building 7 came tumbling down in its footprint, in the same way the U.S. invaded Iraq over "weapons of mass destruction" yet none were ever found and the U.S. government NEVER acknowledged that none were ever found. It reeks the same way that Benhazi was never accounted for and it seems we're all to just forget about the stand down order and exactly who gave it.

And yeah, it seems we're to ignore that jews in the U.S. comprise less than 2 percent of the population and yet there's a running string of them heading the most powerful corporation on the planet.

Somethings not right and I am tired of those who pretend it doesn't exist because it isn't politically or financially expedient to acknowledge that reality.

No balls essence? No backbone? Couldn't stick it out and BE the positive change for America? You run away like your hero Simon black and then bitch about America from afar. You essence are the one that lacks credibility.

Truth is where you find it, and is true regardless of the messenger. So, lets say Ayn Rand was a racist and "misinformed" on a great many subjects. Does it mean she is misinformed on all of them. Ad Hominem is a Fallacy. You don't have to worship Ayn Rand or believe everything she says to find value in some things she does say, and I have noticed a prevalent reluctance on the part of many to engage her arguments on some subjects in any manner. Going Galt is simply a term for dropping out of a system that no longer provides enough benefit to warrant continuing. Hauser's Law is basically proof of the phenomenon, but a simple thought experiment will prove it. How much overtime would you work if I taxed your overtime wages at 100%? at 90%? It works the same with any commodity, including freedom, and it will happen regardless of how many people have read or even agree with Ayn Rand. They drop out because its in their best interest, not because they think they are fighting some glorious stike to achieve a Randian Utopia.

I have noticed that those who don't like Ayn Rand tend to also be those who prefer voting to hold government guns in peoples faces in order to tell them what to buy, what to value and how to live, and in general believe the collective has the right to sieze the lives of others as property of the state, to be used, sacrifcied or extingished for the common good. They don't like Ayn Rand because she points out very clearly that they are thieves and looters who have no right to do so, no matter how many times they repeat "Gemeinnutz geht vor eigennutz"

Perhaps essence you should learn to read. It's KITO, not the precious metals site. Checking kitcos history will get you nowhere. Except last year's gold prices. You still haven't extrapolated essence. What the fuck is your point. Yes, there are lots of Jews in banking and the fed in relation to the population. Are we Jews part of a secret cabal? Do we run the world? Are Jews being secretly bred for this? What does it mean to be a Jew? Is it a religious thing, a cultural thing? Have you met a joo? Do they have horns or a secret handshake?

I've offered plenty of firm opinions, especially about small minded joo conspiracy theorists like you and your swamp mate Francis sawyer. So tell us, is it joo envy that drives you to the point of using an entire group/class of people as a scapegoat. Come on essence, do tell.

will you at the very least concede that, optimally, any member of any fed board be of single citizenship? preferably US citizenship.

i know this may sound cwazy, conspirarcyish, and altogether antique in this 'new world' of ours, but, if you will allow for wild hypotheticals, there is the scant possibility...there is the remotest of theoretical potentialities...that the interests of israel and those of the US may not always intersect. perish the thought, but, has it ever occurred to you, kito (did i nail the spelling?), that israel does not always place the interests of these united states over their own?

not that the only theocracy in the region...wait a minute; what the fuck did i just say? ooops! dammit! i meant to say: not that the only 'democracy' in the region doesn't actively undermine our objectives therein on a regular and duplicitous basis; not that jonathan pollard is a execrable and ignominious traitor (who WILL inhale the rest of every breath and expel his foul & feculent fog in levinworth (or wherever); not that there aren't dozens of other pollards so deserving; and not that we have any reason to doubt high-level governmental officials who divide their allegiances and swear to other oaths...this is, after all, the new world -- a very egalitarian place; only, for some far more egalitarian than for others.

in the near-term, i'm for the destruction of the fed...as to the jailing or whatever of its members, i could care less -- if the people demand retribution for the actions of puppets; so be it -- in revolutions, it's a terrible idea to stand in the way of frenzied 'justice' (you may get caught up in the melee).

in the mid-term, i'm for the decapitation of wire-pullers and sundry others doing the truly dastardly stuff. not metaphorical decapitation, mind you...the very visceral kind.

in the long term, i have your people's interest at heart. dark currents of severe anti-semitism are everywhere being stoked -- especially among the intelligentsia and the put-upon (dangerous admixture). to try and purge it from these pages (or any others) is more than counterproductive. and, to be fair, much of what is now considered anti-zionism has been effectively conflated with anti-semitism.

my zaniness goes so far as to insist that american jews be unambiguously america first.

that little plunder in palestine was our worst -- let me emphasize, OUR WORST and most lamentable experiment in all the annals of american foreign policy. it has caused us nothing but grief...NOTHING! goddamit. i've had just about enough of it. settle your own affairs, likud! i could give two shits about your racist and statist bluster...back it up, bitchez! well, at least try it without the assumed back-stop from uncle sam. see how that works for ya. you have only one friend, and you treat us like we're in some way obliged to you. i/we are not.

you expect us to exchange cheap oil for your impregnable security? fuck that. try being a good neighbor...novel idea, i know. but, my boys, your fairy-tale saga of diaspora, dating back two thousand years doesn't pass mustard...you're the new kids on the block...you are not entitled to every inch king david touched. what's more, the truly original inhabitants of the region are still there -- the dna says as much.

yes, kick my family out of my house so that its 'rightful' (and racially vetted) residents can move it, and, well, you've got something of a vendetta on your hands.

perhaps, as an anglo, i should swoop on down to fairfield, ct. and reclaim all that is rightfully mine from the hebrew usurpers...you know, as dictated by Manifest Destiny. why is my myth any less valid than likud's?

my suggestion to american jews is to be american first and jewish only so far as it doesn't conflict with the american part....any of you jews not wise enough to recognize america as the promised land are offending moses and the whole notion of allegory. the promised land is not a place limited by time and space...it's an idea -- and america is/was the best one going. hell, uncle sam parted every color and climate of sea to secure your safe arrival...and this is our repayment; to say, with insolence, you (america) owe us forever for all our suffering; and so we will trick and cajole and double-cross to affect our ambition...the ends & means -- oh, what a tangled web they weave.

i find it interesting that israel forbids intermarriage. strange for such a 'modern' state...not so strange for a theocracy.

yes, the anti-semitism is here to stay; so long as it's only confronted with sneering sound-bites and terse condescention. an artful and elegant response would go much further...people aren't scared of name-calling and dismissive pomposity anymore. and this, above all, should scare the shit outta zionists everywhere.

paranoia and its reinforcing effects are going to do you in, judah...if memory serves, it's happened often and with predictable regularity.

every christian charity is for all; every jewish charity is for jews only...how does that look to a tolerant society when its most prosperous demographic structures its whole world view under the rubric of 'what's best for the jews'....most especially when what's best for 'jews' can't be so construed as to others, we the dirty goy.

israel and what it represents to modern jewery is grave -- to say the least. israel is an emblem for all that is wrong with this paranoid group mentality. but don't listen to me; listen to abe foxman...he's got your best interest at heart, i promise.

Kito, ayou might be interested in what I wrote here to a Jewish friend of long standing. I believe that Jews are blindly walking into the same problem that they have faced for millenia, and the outcome this time could be worse than ever before. I write as someone who was an extreme Judeophile until reacing a pretty senior position in the tech field at which point I began to see things with a different light. I became 'awakened'. I hope and pray that the worst won't happen but fear it will.

that's ever-so odd, alienIQ. the time & date stamp on your post was several hours before i posted my comment...i reckon the T&D stamp is assigned to the place posted...otherwise wierd shit is afoot.

i'm assuming you live in hawaii or some place very close to the time-reset line...way, way out west -- where it magically becomes 'east'. that, or you really do have some sorta alienIQ. must be sweet, tinkinging with the fifth dimension and all.

Your next task should be to find out and share who controls over 90% of all media in the US. I'm pretty sure that will explain why the facts that you posted will never see the light of day on 90% of the media in the US.

The Fed creates a housing ( or stock market) bubble. Banks lend against inflated collateral. Dr. Bernanke is also responsible for the banking system. He is now a prisoner of his earlier policy. He has created his own political pressure. He's on a tightrope and going forward his is only option as he can't climb down.

I am beginning to see how competence over at the Marriner Eccles building may be less important that loyalties.

However distasteful its role conjuring Dollar$ into existence first for the use of those well heeled and close to the spigot, I could not accept they were incompetent, I guess because all of the conditions that must be met before each conditional act of CNTL P.

But, seems they need to be just smart enough to carry water for some seriously depraved and well positioned policy makers.

Yes, it is true that QE is driven by greed. But it is also of value to identify precisely who's greed it is that is driving it. For the answer to that, we need only identify who has benefited most. Or to put it more simply: Qui bono?

Plosser is another Fed head that has been critical. Last year he questioned the effectiveness of quantitative easing and if I am not mistaken he also suggested that congress should place limits on what the Fed can undertake earlier this year. Of course nothing ever came of it.

If anybody is interested Plosser and Hillsenrath will be at the University of Delaware on February 11th for a free seminar. Last year there was a question and answer portion at the end. If the format is the same this year I think I might have to ask Hillsenrath about his uncanny ability to come out with stories shortly before 4 on the days the market is weak.

The forces that guide the Fed's dangerous policies are characterized as "political" in an effort to obscure the fact that the forces ln the Fed are not based in political parties or ideology. No, the "forces" are the banker cabal and its servants. Simple as that. Those who think Obama tells Bernanke what to do afe wrong. They both work for the real bosses.

Jebus Christ, all this shit is fucking made up. We apply scientific methods and build mathematic models and devise algorithims and go on TV to deliver vague prognostications and then either the herd does what is predicted or it doesn't because sometimes the herd runs off the cliff and sometimes Wolverine stops it. I figure Jebus himself will return before folks find out that central banks serve only their constituent banks. Hell, I figure every possible universe will happen before folks realize that governments act only in their self interest and that of their owners.